About the Center – OpenSecrets Newshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news
Breaking news, original reporting, and investigative journalism *on money in politics from the Center for Responsive PoliticsMon, 19 Nov 2018 22:25:20 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8CRP Board of Directors Names New Officers, Expanding National Impacthttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/11/crp-new-board-of-directors-18/
Fri, 09 Nov 2018 17:48:58 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=28220At the fall meeting of the Center for Responsive Politics’ Board of Directors, the board elected three new officers. Vice…

]]>At the fall meeting of the Center for Responsive Politics’ Board of Directors, the board elected three new officers. Vice Chair John Coyle was elected to be CRP’s new Board Chair, succeeding outgoing Chair, Professor Sonia Jarvis. Also elected at the fall meeting were Grace Hong, Vice Chair, and John Jenkins, Treasurer. (Joe Speicher was previously elected Secretary.)

“On behalf of the Center’s Board of Directors, I am pleased to congratulate John as our new Chair,” said Jarvis. “John brings a wealth of political knowledge and financial experience to this role, as well as a strong commitment to the nonpartisan approach and reliable public interest research for which CRP is known.”

Coyle is Managing Director, Navellier & Associates, the former General Manager at Congressional Quarterly and Senior Director of Nexis Products at Lexis/Nexis. He is a board member of the Roy Hibbert Jr. Foundation and American Independence Financial Services. “John’s unique and rich business perspectives will help us to grow and diversify our capacity,” said Executive Director Sheila Krumholz.

Other elected officers who will bring knowledge of business development, community engagement and sustainability to their new roles include:

Treasurer: John Jenkins. Journalist, author and publishing executive. Founder, Law Street Media. President & Publisher Emeritus of CQ Press; former executive and board member of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (now Bloomberg BNA).

“CRP has experienced exciting change and valuable organizational development under the leadership of Professor Jarvis, and we extend our deepest appreciation to Sonia for her years of service on our board, and her leadership as Board Chair over the past three years,” said Krumholz. “We are indebted to her for her committed service to the Center and her strong and collegial leadership, which has advanced the Center’s mission. We are especially pleased that we will be able to continue to draw on her wisdom and experience as a CRP board member.”

Please join us in sending hearty congratulations and a big “thank you” to our new board leadership team for their continued service and dedication to the Center’s important mission.

]]>Democrats ride monster fundraising to take the House, GOP successfully picks its Senate battleshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/11/2018-wrap-up-am/
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 16:59:33 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=28174In what was the most expensive midterm election ever, a cash advantage didn’t always translate to success at the polls, but it did decide most races.

Josh Hawley captured the Missouri Senate seat Tuesday, despite being heavily outraised by incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill. He was the beneficiary of more than $40 million in outside spending, including $25 million from dark money and partial-disclosing groups. (Michael B. Thomas/Getty Images)

Still, the candidate with more money won most of the time, and fundraising and outside spending trends appear to match up with election results. Democrats soundly took the House while outraising Republicans by more than $300 million. Republicans picked up several seats in the Senate despite being outraised overall, but in key toss-up Senate races in red states, candidate fundraising and outside spending totals were generally close.

Eighty-nine percent of House races were won by the biggest spender, compared to 84 percent of Senate races. When factoring in outside money and fundraising, the House candidate supported by more money won 91 percent of the time and the better-funded Senate candidate won 84 percent of the time.

“Despite record numbers of women, people of color, and first-time candidates running, yesterday’s results show, once again, how powerful money is in our politics,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “Whether dark money funneled through super PACs or funds raised from small donors, these midterm elections were deluged with money.”

Democrats made it a point to challenge every House seat, even in the reddest districts, and the strategy paid off with a handful of upsets.

The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) did its best to try to keep the House red — spending more than $137 million in media to lead all outside groups — but with Democratic candidates raising millions across the country, the group simply couldn’t afford to defend every seat.

On the Senate side, liberal ‘dark money’ group Majority Forward was less successful. It spent more than $24 million to support Democratic Senate hopefuls in Tennessee, Arizona, Indiana and Florida. Two of the races are confirmed to have gone to the GOP and Republicans lead in Arizona and Florida.

In Missouri, Republican Senate winner Josh Hawley got the most outside support from a combination of dark money and partially-disclosing groups, which either don’t disclose all of their donors or accept money from dark money sources. He was boosted by $25 million in media expenditures from these groups, including more than $20 million from the Senate Leadership Fund super PAC, which accepts millions from dark money nonprofit One Nation.

For the first time ever, outside spending outpaced the amount of money raised by candidates in 40 races. The number will likely fall as candidates’ final fundraising numbers are filed with the FEC.

The Senate fundraising numbers are skewed by the biggest Democratic recipients, several of whom set fundraising records in losses. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) lost her seat to Kevin Cramer despite outraising him $27 million to $5.5 million. Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) fell to Sen. Ted Cruz despite collecting a record $69 million through Oct. 17.

On the other hand, some candidates didn’t need to raise much to win their races. Sen. Mazie Hirono won with less than $3.3 million raised.

The cheapest congressional win went to Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), who won while spending less than $175,000. Her opponent didn’t crack $6,000 raised.

]]>Blue wave of money propels 2018 election to record-breaking $5.2 billion in spendinghttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/2018-midterm-record-breaking-5-2-billion/
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 17:06:42 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=28015The Center for Responsive Politics projects that more than $5.2 billion will be spent this cycle, making the 2018 midterms the most expensive ever.

The Center for Responsive Politics projects that more than $5.2 billion will be spent this election cycle, making it the most expensive midterm election ever by a wide margin.

With less than two weeks before election day, $4.7 billion has already been spent by candidates, political parties and other groups such as PACs, super PACs, and nonprofits. Prior to this election cycle, no midterm election had surpassed more than $4.2 billion in spending when adjusted for inflation.

The overall estimated cost of the 2018 election would represent a 35 percent increase over the 2014 cycle in nominal dollars, the largest increase in at least two decades.

“The significance of this election is clear. But whether it’s a blue wave or a red wave, one thing is certain: A wave of money is surging toward Election Day, much of it coming from the wealthiest donors targeting this year’s most competitive races,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

While Republican candidates are raising funds at record levels, the huge uptick in spending is driven primarily by unprecedented Democratic fundraising. Democratic candidates are projected to spend more than $2.5 billion this cycle, while Republicans are expected to spend approximately $2.2 billion.

Democratic House hopefuls have raised more than $951 million, crushing their Republican opponents’ $637 million haul. Things are closer in the Senate — $513 million to $361 million — but Democrats are still ahead.

In every kind of competitive race — even those in red districts — Democrats are either outraising Republicans or keeping pace.

For example, in 27 House races rated “Likely R” by Cook Political Report, Democrats are keeping up in fundraising, collecting $1.95 million on average to Republicans’ $2 million.

In 29 House races labeled “toss up” that are currently held by a Republican, Democratic candidates raised an average of $5.5 million, dwarfing the Republicans’ $3 million average.

Democrats outraised Republicans in every quarter, and the most recent pre-general filing period — Oct. 1 through Oct. 17 — was no different. Republicans were outraised $126 million to $82.5 million. For the first time in a decade, Blue will outraise Red.

“Whether you’re looking at donations from women, large donors, small donors, dark money groups, parties, or unions, the Democrats are seeing incredible success in fundraising this cycle,” said Sarah Bryner, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics. “Whether that money will translate into success on November 6th is an open question, given that money – while essential – is by no means the only factor governing electoral outcomes.”

Democratic candidates have benefitted from an unparalleled level of enthusiasm from female donors. Democrats running in the general election have raised $308 million from female donors, compared to approximately $90 million for Republicans.

Female Democratic Senate candidates — who are mostly made up of incumbents — hauled in an average of $5.3 million in contributions from women, accounting for 48 percent of their fundraising.

On the House side, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) collected a candidate-high 63 percent of his contributions from women. Not a single Republican cracks the top 10 for Senate or House candidates when it comes to the percentage of funds from female donors.

Republican men running for House collected the lowest percentage of their money from female donors — 24 percent.

Small donors, too, have been an advantage for Democrats. Among House candidates, 16 percent of contributions to Democrats come from individuals and total less than $200 — considered a small individual contribution — compared to 8 percent of House Republicans’ funds.

Senate Democrats collect a whopping 27 percent of their money from small individual contributions, again doubling up Republicans (13 percent).

In the pre-general filing period, a mammoth 44 percent of donations to Democratic Senate hopefuls came from small contributions, adding up to $22 million.

Democrats’ success with their online fundraiser ActBlue has led to more small contributions, as well as a base of voters that is more than willing to donate to out-of-state candidates.

In terms of itemized individual contributions, Senate Democrats received 60 percent of their funds — nearly $220 million — from out-of-state donors. Democrats in the House got 45 percent of their funds from out-of-state.

Republican House incumbents are getting significantly more money from out-of-state than challengers — 37 percent to 25 percent — while the trend is reversed for Democratic House candidates (49 percent out-of-state for challengers and 35 percent for incumbents).

Educators, health professionals, retired people make a splash

Individual contributors that list themselves as “retired” spent more than $298 million supporting candidates, parties and outside groups, nearly double what they spent in 2014. In total, 53 percent of funds coming from retired individuals and groups representing them went toward supporting Democrats.

Those in the education industry spent big this cycle to the tune of $71 million, 88 percent of which went to Democratic candidates. The sector spent just $34.4 million in 2014, with a smaller 74 percent of the money going to Democrats.

Health professionals also made a splash by spending double their 2014 total — approximately $140 million — with 57 percent aiding Democrats.

The Securities & Investment industry has spent at least $100 million more than in 2014 and has favored Democrats over Republicans — 52 to 46 percent — for the first midterm election cycle since 2006.

Sheldon and Miriam Adelson are the biggest spenders so far this cycle, shelling out more than $113 million in support of Republican candidates. It’s the most the Las Vegas couple has spent in an election cycle, surpassing the $93 million they spent in 2012.

Tom Steyer comes in second place with nearly $51 million committed to helping Democrats. The billionaire environmentalist is not spending like he was in 2014 and 2016 when he was the top overall mega-donor.

According to FEC data, Michael Bloomberg has so far fallen short of his promised $100 million in contributions to help Democrats win Congress. Still, his $38 million in support of Democrats is nothing to scoff at.

Lesser-known billionaire Richard Uihlein and his wife Elizabeth have spent more than $39 million in support of Republicans, good for third-most among mega donors.

Crucial races draw millions in outside spending, dark money

Approximately $1.1 billion has been spent by outside groups to influence the 2018 general election, including $571 million on House races.

CRP projects that Democrats and liberal outside groups will have spent 44 percent more money for their congressional efforts by the end of this election cycle compared to four years ago. Republican and conservative growth in spending, however, is projected to rise by only 21 percent since 2014.

Five tightly-contested Senate races, in Nevada, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and Arizona have seen more than $50 million in outside spending, as groups race to air negative ads.

The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) super PAC has taken the lead for Republican House candidates, spending nearly $123 million, approximately $109 million of which accounts for negative advertising against more than 50 Democratic House candidates.

Spending from “dark money” groups — groups that do not disclose their donors with the FEC — is down this cycle, with nearly $128 million spent. Though outside money was much lower overall in 2014, dark money spending was higher, nearly reaching $178 million.

Majority Forward is the top dark money spender so far, shelling out more than $43 million to support Democratic Senate candidates.

The Tennessee and Florida Senate races are taking on the most dark money influence, with more than $10 million being spent in each race, mostly against the Republican candidates.

Though non-disclosed, dark money funding is down, outside spending from groups that fully disclose their donors is also down from the 2016 election — 57.4 percent from 72.2 percent. The percentage of funds from “partially-disclosed” groups — which either don’t reveal all of their donors or take money from dark money groups — has risen to 31 percent from 15 percent in 2016.

The high levels of partial disclosure suggest that dark money is not disappearing, but rather is being funneled through super PACs and other outside spending groups that give the appearance of disclosing their donors.

]]>Cost of 2018 election to surpass $5 billion, CRP projectshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/cost-of-2018-election/
Wed, 17 Oct 2018 21:20:41 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=27867The Center for Responsive Politics projects that more than $5 billion will be spent during the 2018 election, making it the costliest in U.S. history.

]]>This year’s midterm election cycle is slated to become the first and only member of the $5 billion club.

The Center for Responsive Politics projects that more than $5 billion will be spent during the 2018 election, making it by far the costliest congressional election cycle in U.S. history.

“We expected to see the numbers climb, as they typically do, but the astonishing spike in campaign donations is a solid indicator of the intensity driving this year’s campaigns,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

The 2016 election was the most expensive congressional election, with just over $4 billion spent for House and Senate candidates in total. Only two congressional election cycles have surpassed the $4 billion mark — 2016 and 2010 — when adjusted for inflation.

More than $3.7 billion has already been spent on the 2018 election, including money spent by candidates, parties, committees, PACs and outside groups, for the purpose of the election.

Democratic candidates have a huge lead in spending over Republicans, having shelled out more than $1 billion to Republican candidates’ $720 million. Democrats have raised more than $1.3 billion from individual donors — compared to just under $1 billion for Republicans — as Democratic challengers have raised large masses of funds through small donors.

Republicans are leading in the outside money department, having benefited from approximately $343 million in outside spending compared to $248 million for Democrats. Outside spending, overall, is projected to be the highest-ever for a midterm election. More than $628 million has been spent by outside groups so far, compared to $421 million at this point in 2014.

Utilizing historical spending growth data from the third quarter on, CRP’s model projects the total amount spent in the 2018 election will reach approximately $5.2 billion. CRP projects Democrats will spend nearly $300 million more than Republicans — $2.5 billion to $2.2 billion. If current trends continue, Blue will outspend Red for the first time in 10 years.

CRP’s projections will be updated, and campaign finance trends will be identified, as new data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) comes in.

]]>OpenSecrets will be closed for July 4thhttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/07/opensecrets-will-closed-july-4th/
Tue, 03 Jul 2018 18:07:17 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=26824We will be back on Thursday, July 5th! Have a fun and safe holiday.

]]>Calling all researchers: Bounty offered for Money-In-Politics anomaly discoveries.https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/06/rewards-4-money-politics-anomaly-discoveries/
Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:00:25 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=26565We are offering a bounty for money-in-politics anomalies found in federal data by anyone who is interested in looking.

]]>
We track a lot of data here at OpenSecrets. We look at campaign finance, lobbying spending, personal finances and a whole lot more. Sometimes, that data reveals something unusual – an anomaly, if you will. That is why we have a handy tool called the Anomaly Tracker to highlight these unusual findings.

An anomaly, as we define it, is an occurrence that is out of the ordinary. It is not necessarily an indication that there is something amiss or nefarious.

Currently, we are tracking 6 distinct kinds of anomalies:

Lawmakers sponsoring legislation that was lobbied by only one company or other organization whose employees or PAC also donated to the sponsoring lawmakers.

Lawmakers receiving twice as much in contributions from their top donors as their next highest donors.

Lawmakers receiving twice as much in contributions from their top donor industries as their next highest donor industries.

Lawmakers receiving more than 50 percent of their itemized contributions from out of state.

More than 50 percent of a committee or candidate’s spending is paid to a single vendor.

PACs giving at least $7,500 to a candidate’s Leadership PAC but nothing to the candidate’s committee.

But we can only discover so much on our own. That is where you come in. We are offering a bounty for money-in-politics anomalies found in federal data by anyone who is interested in looking. As a reward, savvy hunters can receive OpenSecrets swag and/or can have their relevant work featured in our weekly money-in-politics newsletter.

You can submit findings to info@crp.org – use the subject line “anomaly found”. Contest runs as long as there is money involved in American elections. Happy hunting.

]]>Best of 2017: 10 Stories of Money and Politicshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/12/best-of-2017/
Wed, 20 Dec 2017 22:12:28 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=24480Keeping pace with the news cycle this year was not easy – but fear not.

For your holiday reading, here are some of our favorite stories during a memorable year in politics.

]]>A billionaire president surrounded by the wealthiest cabinet in modern history. Special elections that shattered records for campaign spending. A foreign government spending millions on Facebook ads to influence an election.

Mere days before his inauguration, then-President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign committee received a sharply worded letter from the Federal Election Commission about multiple campaign finance violations – from accepting contributions the legal limit to pocketing those from anonymous donors. “Refused” and “Anonymous” were frequent donors of Trump’s candidacy.

Americans want cheaper prescription drug prices, yet a proposal for importing lower-cost drugs from Canada failed in the Senate. Our analysis showed that senators who voted against the amendment had received vastly higher political contributions from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.

Next month is the eighth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling that gave birth to super PACs and a mechanism for funneling unlimited cash to influence U.S. political campaigns. We reflected on the 5-4 court decision last year by tracking the rise of super PAC spending that has no appearance of stopping anytime soon.

Mar-a-Lago resort is not only Trump’s so-called “Winter White House” but also an opportunity to mingle with the new president – assuming you can afford the $200,000 annual membership. A CRP analysis found that the Mar-a-Lagians whose names have been publicized have spent a minimum of $4.9 million on federal-level political contributions since 1989. More than three-quarters of that has gone to Republicans.

A single conservative mega donor poured millions into a campaign that blocked Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, from filling the empty court seat later filled by Trump’s choice, Neil Gorsuch. CRP broke the story in its analysis of tax documents filed by Judicial Crisis Network, the small nonprofit behind the campaign.

President Donald Trump raised over $100 million for his 2017 inaugural festivities, shattering previous records. In this story, we detailed the generous donors who funded Trump’s 2017 celebrations. For more, see the donors who gave more than $100,000 for recent inaugurations.

Shadowy politically active nonprofits (or “dark money” groups), deep-pocketed super PACs and other outside groups have never spent so much, so early in an election cycle, our data shows. Outside groups spent nearly $48 million through August – or more than double the $21 million the groups spent at this point in the 2016 presidential election cycle.

The National Rifle Association’s spending surged by more than $100 million in 2016, surpassing any previous annual NRA spending totals on record, according to documents obtained by CRP. The NRA’s unprecedented spending helped deliver Donald Trump the White House and for Republicans, control of Congress.

Roughly eight of 10 Americans opposed the Federal Communications Commission’s planned repeal of Obama-era net neutrality protections. It didn’t matter. The repeal passed 3-2 by along party lines, with the FCC’s Republican commissioners siding with the interests of internet service providers (ISPs).

Hordes of federal lobbyists have deliberately moved into the shadows to avoid the spotlight (and the reporting requirements) of an FEC-registered lobbyist, a CRP special report reveals. Our investigation found nearly a third of previously registered lobbyists who stayed at the same organization but are no longer registered have titles that indicate they may still be working on influencing policy.

Looking to the future:

The 2017 special elections continue into the 2018, following a string of resignations this month. The 2018 midterms, which could determine which party controls the House of Representatives are only 11 months away. Stay tuned…

]]>Center for Responsive Politics Closed for Thanksgivinghttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/11/center-responsive-politics-closed-thanksgiving/
Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:01:43 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=24268The Center for Responsive Politics will be closed all day Thursday and Friday in observance of the Thanksgiving holiday. The Center will be reopen at 9 a.m. on…

]]>The Center for Responsive Politics will be closed all day Thursday and Friday in observance of the Thanksgiving holiday. The Center will be reopen at 9 a.m.on Monday, November 27th.

OpenSecrets.org’s numerous data sets will continue to be updated during this time. And please check OpenSecrets Blog for the latest money in politics news.

Thanks to you, more than 7 million users freely accessed our data and research last year. And thanks to you, CRP data appeared in more than 29,000 news reports, allowing this information to reach more people than ever before.

You have been so generous to support our work over the last 35 years, so today we give thanks to you. Have a wonderful holiday.

]]>Testimony by Sheila Krumholz, Executive Director of the Center for Responsive Politics before the Senate Democratic Policy And Communications Committee
July 19, 2017

Chairwoman Stabenow, Senator Whitehouse and other Senators:

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony for today’s hearing regarding politically active nondisclosing nonprofits (“dark money organizations”) and the possibility of foreign funding of those activities.

The Center for Responsive Politics has been “following the money” and its effects on U.S. politics and policy for 34 years. I, myself, have been doing this work at the Center for most of those years, and I can attest to the fact that the work of unveiling the sources of money spent to shape U.S. elections has now become extremely challenging. As always, it comes down to transparency. When our laws have required transparency in campaign finance – for example, requiring disclosure of soft money to the parties in 1991 – the press, the public and groups like ours have been able to effectively investigate and track money in U.S. politics. During the late 1990s, having disclosure of this information was critical to congressional investigations, which concluded that foreigners had indeed contributed to U.S. political committees, in violation of the law.

Today, the laws governing transparency of money in politics have not kept pace with other changes to our campaign finance system. In particular, the Citizens United decision threw the door wide open to unlimited contributions from unlimited and secret sources giving to supposedly independent outside groups interested in shaping electoral outcomes.

We already know from past campaign finance scandals that foreign corporations, individuals and governments had the wherewithal and the willingness to try to shape U.S. elections in the past. Given this, it defies logic to think that those motivations or opportunities no longer exist – particularly since foreign donations can be given easily, legally and secretly to nonprofits that are now allowed to be highly politically active.

Particularly given apparent foreign interference in last year’s elections, and the wideranging and serious ramifications of such interference, Congress must act, and act quickly, to defend our democracy.

For our part, CRP’s researchers have spent countless hours delving into 990 tax forms filed by nonprofits over the past decade, trying to disentangle networks of dark money organizations, and to the degree possible, tease out the identity of their hidden funders. CRP investigators work to analyze the meager information provided in public IRS forms along with other public information about the financial activities of politically active organizations reported to the Federal Election Commission and other government entities.

It is painstaking work, given the massive number of nonprofits in the U.S., so we partner with GuideStar to make sifting through the data more efficient. Unfortunately, by necessity, it is also largely forensic work, given that tax forms are filed anywhere from five to 10 and a half months after an organization’s fiscal year ends, and in some cases the filings aren’t submitted until we come looking.(1) What this means, depending on an individual group’s fiscal year, is that even if an organization is filing on time, it can be revealing financial information about its election activities that is already almost two years old. (2)

We also use, and offer on our OpenSecrets.org website, FCC records on political ad buys to examine data on broadcast ads by nonprofits, whether that spending is reported to the FEC or not. In contrast, information about spending on highly targeted political messaging on social media platforms such as Facebook remains largely secret, limiting what we can know about funders of the online political messaging that was reputed to be so highly influential in the 2016 elections. (3)

In report after report, CRP Political Nonprofits Investigator Robert Maguire and our team of researchers and reporters have documented the byzantine process and exorbitant fees demanded by politically active nonprofits claiming tax-exempt status to obtain their application materials and tax forms, and the virtual stakeouts we have had to arrange in order to do so.(4) On top of that, we’ve spent thousands of dollars and countless hours monitoring IRS documents for these groups, trying to piece together what activities they are actually engaged in when their tax forms lead to dead ends. The IRS, in contrast, may take months or years to approve an organization’s status, yet never ask the group any questions at all.(5)

If “this” is due diligence, it is neither efficient nor effective, and the IRS should be called upon to use all of the information available to it – including reports filed with the FEC – to corroborate information reported to it by nonprofits seeking tax-exempt status. The IRS should also be required to provide free, electronic information to the public on groups seeking tax breaks. Until then, if due diligence requires no stone unturned, one sometimes has to be willing to fork over $428 for a Form 1024 application(6), only to see that it contains a print out of every single page of a group’s website, along with their lease, as was the case with the 501(c)(4) nonprofit, American Bridge 21st Century, one of a number of nonprofits about which we have written that have posed challenges to gathering what is supposed to be public information on their tax-exempt financial activity.

From this work we have identified patterns that ought to be concerning to policymakers who believe that the public should be an active participant in their democracy, and that they need and deserve effective and meaningful disclosure of money in politics in order to be able to do so. We have found:

Politically active nonprofits that report to the IRS political spending that contradicts their FEC reports covering the same period;

Entities that raise and spend tens of millions of dollars but have no employees, no volunteers, nor even a bricks-and-mortar presence, but exist only as a UPS box – raising the specter of money laundering organizations whose sole function is to act as intermediaries, obscuring money’s source and pathways;

Purported “social welfare” and “business league” nonprofits whose financial activity spikes in election years and then plummets in non-election years to far lower levels reflecting their pre-Citizens United activity – a pattern more typical of political campaign committees than organizations devoted to social uplift.

Why does this matter? Because if it’s difficult for an organization like the Center for Responsive Politics to follow the money, it will be unlikely that American voters will fare any better. And the identity of the messenger behind political advertising is clearly fundamental to understanding the credibility of their message.

Does knowing whether an ad on indoor clean-air rules is funded by a tobacco company change the way we absorb the message? Or whether a pro-gun rights ad is paid for by a gun manufacturer? Of course it does. Voters quite logically evaluate campaign communications differently when they have information about who is promoting the message, which is why political operatives and donors seek anonymity – to take away the ability of people to think critically about and possibly discount their message.

Unfamiliar and innocuous-sounding names used by politically active nondisclosing nonprofits may actually lead voters to find their claims to be more credible than those from organizations with which they are already familiar.(7) Studies suggest that when voters are exposed to ads from unfamiliar groups they “lean in” to listen more carefully, giving their messages more attention and value than they would if they knew who was behind the message. When voters are being bombarded with political messages but cannot accurately judge their credibility because essential information is being withheld from them, they are far more likely to make judgements based on incomplete, misleading or false information and therefore are prevented from making decisions in their own best interest. When such a situation is allowed to exist, the integrity of our democracy is in danger.

But voters are not the only ones being short changed by this system of readily available loopholes for disclosure. Other government regulators, such as those at the FEC, do not have access to important financial information in real time that would help them to investigate groups in a timely manner.(8)

At a time when there are daily headlines about foreign interference in the 2016 elections, concerns about foreign governments tampering with state-based election systems, and fake news emanating from foreign countries that microtarget American social media users, it is no longer sufficient to rely on historical norms or societal pressure to deter misbehavior in political finance.

There is evident need to better monitor foreign involvement in U.S. politics, including oversight of the paid campaigns by foreign governments to influence U.S. policies. The Foreign Agents Registration Act’s weak disclosure rules allowed Trump advisers Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort to lobby on behalf of foreign governments without disclosing that they had done so until months after the fact. One tool that can facilitate this oversight is Foreign Lobby Watch, a free, user-friendly database that CRP launched on OpenSecrets.org earlier this year, allowing people to more easily delve into these reports and to know who is selling their services to foreign governments and corporations who seek to shape U.S. policies.

President Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.” Given foreign meddling in U.S. elections, lax enforcement, the rise of megadonors and secret channels through which to fund politics, it is urgent for public officials to provide the American people with a comprehensive and trustworthy means by which to verify who is bankrolling politically active nonprofits and how they shape our elections and policies.

Justice Kennedy, in writing to uphold disclosure laws as an important basis upon which Citizens United was decided, wrote, “…transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

Unfortunately, the Court’s decision was based on incomplete information. We do not have and are not guaranteed a transparent campaign finance system. We must clearly communicate this fact and rectify it, because allowing the current façade of transparency to continue will only worsen cynicism and distrust and is deeply damaging to our common goal of protecting the integrity of our democracy.

For example, when we requested returns from the Government Integrity Fund seven months after the group should have filed them, we were told that the group would file them the following week (but they took more than a month to file): https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/06/group-that-backed-tom-cotton-in-14-got-a-bigboost-from-club-for-growth/

For example, if a politically active nonprofit runs on a July to June fiscal year, it can spend heavily on political ads in July. Then, once it’s fiscal year ends, the following June, it has 10 and a half months to file its 990, which in most case means the group will wait until May of subsequent year (i.e. 22 months after the spending took place) to file.

For example, one of the largest most politically active nonprofits in the last cycle was One Nation, run by the same political operatives that run Crossroads GPS. In October 2016, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington noted that One Nation had been posting ads on its Youtube page that did not correspond with filings that would have had to have been submitted to the FEC if they were run on television, suggesting that they were using a web-ad loophole: https://www.citizensforethics.org/big-spending-non-profit-one-nation-exploiting-onlinead-loophole/

CRP’s 2015 report detailing what we had to go through to get tax documents for Rosebush Corp—a pass-through nonprofit that funded super PACs and other politically active nonprofits—details the unnecessary complexity: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/01/14-months-of-runaround-more-on-how-to-obtain-or-not-publicdocuments-from-the-irs/

And in some cases, when they do ask questions, they seem willing to accept almost any response. For example, a politically active nonprofit called the American Future Fund, which pursues no demonstrable social welfare beyond political activity and funding other groups that do, applied for recognition as tax exempt in 2012. Upon being asked by the IRS about reports of its possible involvement in a campaign money laundering scheme in California and millions of dollars-worth of direct candidate advocacy in federal elections, American Future Fund not only affirmed that the information the IRS was presenting was accurate but also that it did not “anticipate that its future activities will differ substantially from those it has carried on to date.” Still, the IRS approved the group’s application: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/nonprofits-exemption-was-granted-despite-record-finebig-political-spending/

“This 2,143-Page IRS Document Could Be Yours for Just $428.60 (Plus Shipping)” https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/07/this-2143-page-irs-document-could-be-yours-for-just-428-60-plusshipping/

“Why We Should Care About Dark Money Ads.” http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/blog/why-we-should-careabout-dark-money-ads/

The case of Carolina Rising is perhaps one of the best examples of this. Not only did the group spend virtually all of its money running positive ads about a single Senate candidate, Thom Tillis, who won his election, but the head of the nonprofit was on live TV from the Tillis victory party saying “$4.7 million. We did it.” However, the FEC deadlocked on whether to proceed with an investigation of the group partly because of the fact that the Office of General Council did not have access to Carolina Rising’s tax return, which hadn’t been filed yet, and therefore, the OGC could not have known that the group’s overall spending was barely more than what they had spent supporting Tillis: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/fec-deadlocks-wont-investigate-dark-money-groupthat-spent-all-its-funds-on-an-election/

Trump received about $6 billion in free media during the campaign, meaning he and the groups supporting him could spend less producing ads and buying expensive TV time. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast, File)

Election Day, 2016? Now an ancient memory from a distant time. But the intervening months have allowed us to do some math and determine, finally, the price tag for the whole shebang. We can now report that the total cost of the election was nearly $6.5 billion, a 3 percent increase from 2012’s figure of just under $6.3 billion.

Adjusted for inflation, however, that’s actually a drop of about 1.4 percent. Inflation-adjusted spending also fell from 2010 to 2014, making this a two-cycle trend.

The presidential race was responsible, in large part, for keeping the tally down in 2016. Despite the crowded field of 19 candidates, the cost of the White House race — at under $2.4 billion, including campaign committee and outside spending — was lower than that of both 2008 (about $2.8 billion) and 2012 (over $2.6 billion), even when measured by actual dollars (not inflation-adjusted).

Congressional races, on the other hand, were pricier than ever, totaling more than $4 billion, compared to $3.8 billion in 2014 and under $3.7 billion in 2012.

And, all things considered, Democrats and Republicans roughly split the costs of the election, with each picking up 47.7 percent of the tab;the remaining 4.6 percent came from independent groups or spending that lacks party codes in our data (like most of PAC overhead, for instance).

President Donald Trump‘s campaign cost almost $398 million, which was considerably lower than candidate Hillary Clinton‘s total of more than $768 million. But Trump was Trump, and thus a constant focus of media attention. According to mediaQuant, Inc., from July 2015 through October 2016 Trump received free media worth more than $5.9 billion. Clinton received less than half that figure, a little under $2.8 billion.

That helped negate the fact that Clinton and her supporters massively outspent Trump and his. Clinton outpaced Trump in campaign committee spending as well as party support; and her outside spending firepower was especially impressive, as single-candidate groups backing Clinton spent more than triple the amount that those in favor of Trump spent.

*Outside spending, in this case, consists of outside groups dedicated to a specific candidate; organizations like the NRA, for example, would not be included.

In 2012, through the channels featured in the above chart, the campaigns of President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney cost more than $2.1 billion combined. Trump and Clinton’s campaigns, on the other hand, didn’t break $1.9 billion — with Clinton’s making up almost 62 percent of the total.

“This was the first presidential cycle of the 21st century in which traditional campaign spending declined,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “Yet the value of earned media can’t be ignored. Media outlets provided nonstop coverage of Donald Trump’s campaign, reducing the negative effect of comparatively anemic spending by his campaign and conservative outside groups.”

An elite cadre

There was another notable difference from the financing of other recent elections, though: Fewer donors provided a larger share of the money. Just look at a group we call the 0.01 percent.

The 0.01 percent consists of the cycle’s top donors — where the number of members equals 1 percent of 1 percent of the United States’ estimated adult population (aged 18 or older). In 2012, that group numbered fewer than 24,000 and gave about $1.6 billion in contributions. The total for 2016’s 0.01 percent spiked to more than $2.3 billion — an increase of about 45 percent. That vastly outstripped the growth in the group’s size, which was only 3 percent.

Most of that increase came in the form of soft money, or contributions to outside spending groups, which more than doubled. Given that there are no limits on the size of these donations, and that super PACs, 501(c)(4)s and similar organizations continue to proliferate with each cycle, soft money gifts are a reliable means of getting enormous sums of cash into elections.

On the flip side, the share of total contributions considered “small,” or made by individuals giving $200 or less in a cycle, fell by about 3.4 percent from 2012 to 2016 — despite the enormous haul of small donations harvested by the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) (and, to a lesser extent, Trump). More than 59 percent of the funds Sanders raised came from donors giving $200 or less. His rhetoric about more economic power funneling toward fewer people as income inequality worsens resonated with the public — and, as it turned out, was appropriate for the cycle’s campaign finance picture as well, where power has become increasingly concentrated within a shrinking group.

In fact, more broadly, total contributions from donors not in the 0.01 percent decreased between presidential cycles.

And here’s the kicker: While the 0.01 percent swings lots of money around, a disproportionate amount of that cash comes from yet another subgroup, and the imbalance has gotten worse with time. In 2012, the top 50 donors made up about 19 percent of the 0.01 percent’s contributions. In 2016, they accounted for nearly 30 percent.

That’s why we also looked at the top 1 percent of 1 percent of donors, a group of fewer than 200 people who spent almost $1 billion combined in the 2016 cycle. The group’s political contributions more than doubled from 2012 to 2016, from about $390 million to nearly $948 million. And although the group’s size grew by about 33.4 percent, which would naturally raise giving totals, the contribution increase amounted to an even greater 143 percent.

The uppermost crust

Billionaire donors like casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, consistently pile millions of dollars onto federal elections. The pair contributed a combined $82.5 million over the course of the 2016 cycle. But they were eclipsed by a single individual: Tom Steyer, a hedge fund manager and environmentalist, who led all donors by pumping more than $90 million into the election. Despite their political differences, Steyer, a liberal, and the Adelsons, staunch conservatives, are on the same page when it comes to spending millions of dollars on their causes.

“On a lot of issues, it’s really a shoot-out between these billionaires who are picking favorites,” said Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a board chair of the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Painter said that wealthy donors often push their agendas to the detriment of society at large. “It’s always hard for a broadly dispersed group to counter a very narrow interest,” he said. “So the money tends to pursue very narrow agendas that are very selfish, and very destructive to the rest of society from the very top to the very bottom. It becomes chaotic; you have irrational policy positions.” Million-dollar donors tend to vie for their own interests, whether those involve causes like gun rights or something more directly related to their business concerns, like the legal status of online gambling.

Among the newcomers to the uppermost crust was Dustin Moskovitz, who emerged with a bang. Prior to the 2016 cycle, the co-founder of Facebook and Asana had contributed to just one federal candidate or cause: He gave $5,200 in 2013 to House candidate Sean Eldridge (D-N.Y.), who is married to Chris Hughes, another Facebook co-founder. Then, in the 2016 cycle, Moskovitz gave almost $18 million to candidates and organizations.

Stories like Moskovitz’ point to the fact that not only are the most prolific donors giving more but also more donors are becoming prolific. 2012 had 37 donors give at least $2 million; 2016 had 110.

“When you see that the bulk of the money is coming from a few wealthy donors — who, by the way, tend to be male, white and older — it’s worrying,” said Every Voice’s Laura Friedenbach. “It gives the impression that the government is not working for the rest of us,” she said.

Surprise, surprise

In our pre-election estimate of the 2016 cycle’s total cost, we predicted that the election would cost at least $6.9 billion. With a final cost of roughly $6.5 billion, we were off by about 6.4 percent.

The most impactful contributor to the gap between our prediction and the final tally was outside spending. In 2012, outside spending constituted 19 percent of the election’s cost; in 2016, that number shot up to 24 percent. (And remember that the greatest change in the 0.01 percent’s giving from 2012 to 2016 was the group’s soft money contributions, which fuel outside spending groups.) Our projection took that larger share of the pool into account and also operated under the assumption that outside spending would increase as election day neared, as it often does. But outside spending actually slowed down relative to 2012, causing our estimate to be a little high.

Regardless, about 42 percent of outside spending went to Democrats and roughly 56 percent to Republicans.

Another surprise was the spending of party committees. We estimated that groups like the DNC and RNC would spend $1.3 billion, and they ended up pouring more than $1.5 billion into the election. Still, that was within 3 percent of 2012’s slightly-larger figure.

For a full breakdown of the cost of the 2016 election, see the chart below. You can sort it by any of the columns to pinpoint whatever metric you’re interested in.

Correction, 4/17: The original version of this story said that the share of contributions made by individuals giving $200 or less fell by 4 percent from 2012 to 2016. The correct figure is 3.4 percent. We have modified the text accordingly and regret the error.